New Bullets Mean Certain Death

[Warrior102]

Very underpowered - and inaccurate as hell (Ruger). I don't believe I could hit a barn at 20 feet with the damned thing... LOL

 

[Lakhota]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

I only have high capacity magazines for my Ruger .22 rifle. I like them for the convenience.

But since you disagree with high capacity magazines, tell us how many rounds will assure safety in all defensive situation?

Also, the reason for limitations for duck hunters is not out of an attempt to save the individual ducks. It is to assure that the population survives. I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction.

Also, if a 10 round magazine is ok, but a 15 round magazine is not, aren't you saying that it's ok to kill 10 people, but it's a moral outrage to kill 15?

You are only comparing 10 to 15 capacity. Personally, other than single-shot, I would prefer the maximum be 10 - maybe even 5. My current understanding is that there are no limits on magazine capacity for civilian non-hunting use. BTW, I care more about the survival of people than ducks. Most fish and wildlife regulations are stricter than gun purchasing and ownership.

 

[earlycuyler]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.

2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.

2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.

1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.

2. Holy shit. Family members can file a lawsuit. Texas logic...

 

[westwall]

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.

You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.

But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?

Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?

Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?


What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly. Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.

And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.

Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads. If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property. I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.

I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads. I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.



So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties? And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?

Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts. NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.

BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?" Holy shit...

Laws have had no effect on drunk driving deaths. People survive more often now because of good medical care and yet there are just as many drunk driving deaths as there was 15 years ago.

 

[earlycuyler]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.

2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.

1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.

2. Holy shit. Family members can file a lawsuit. Texas logic...

Yes thay can. Unlike law inforcement civilians dont have a union to pay all their legal bills. While many joke about it and make snippy little bumper stickers on the topic CCW is extreamly serious. As for regulating ducks, deer and methods of take, we hunters and fishermen want wildlife to exist for feuture generations. This is why we pay cash dollars to be restricted in these mattres. As for the thugs, we want them all dead so future generations dont have to deal with them. Savvy ?

 

[westwall]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

No. Scumbags who wish to harm people are not more valuable than ducks. There are a LIABILITY. Sometimes they travel in packs. That's why normal capacity magazines are beneficial.

 

[Lakhota]

Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.

You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.

But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?

Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?

Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?


What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly. Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.

And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.

Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads. If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property. I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.

I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads. I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.



So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties? And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?

Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts. NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.

BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?" Holy shit...

Laws have had no effect on drunk driving deaths. People survive more often now because of good medical care and yet there are just as many drunk driving deaths as there was 15 years ago.

Some truth in your statement, but are you saying to ignore the problem? Plus, I don't equate drunk driving to universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines.

Effects of legislative reform to reduce drunken driving and alcohol-related traffic fatalities

Board Meeting: Safety Report on Eliminating Impaired Driving - NTSB

 

[HenryBHough]

For any given driver odds of being involved in a fatal accident increase with the number of miles driven.

Therefore we MUST limit fuel tank capacity to 2.5 liters.

 

[Lakhota]

For any given driver odds of being involved in a fatal accident increase with the number of miles driven.

Therefore we MUST limit fuel tank capacity to 2.5 liters.

Well, that makes as much sense as some of the other opposing posts. Would you prefer that highways and vehicles be totally unregulated - or even less regulated?

 

[HenryBHough]

For any given driver odds of being involved in a fatal accident increase with the number of miles driven.

Therefore we MUST limit fuel tank capacity to 2.5 liters.

Well, that makes as much sense as some of the other opposing posts. Would you prefer that highways and vehicles be totally unregulated?

When highways start leaping up and killing people not using them then, yeah, we need extreme regulation. Same for vehicles that are not in motion. As soon as the first one starts itself up all by itself and kills somebody then they must have psychological testing and close regulation. Maybe assign a bureaucrat to stand next to each and every one to be sure it's acting responsibly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

I only have high capacity magazines for my Ruger .22 rifle. I like them for the convenience.

But since you disagree with high capacity magazines, tell us how many rounds will assure safety in all defensive situation?

Also, the reason for limitations for duck hunters is not out of an attempt to save the individual ducks. It is to assure that the population survives. I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction.

Also, if a 10 round magazine is ok, but a 15 round magazine is not, aren't you saying that it's ok to kill 10 people, but it's a moral outrage to kill 15?

You are only comparing 10 to 15 capacity. Personally, other than single-shot, I would prefer the maximum be 10 - maybe even 5. My current understanding is that there are no limits on magazine capacity for civilian non-hunting use. BTW, I care more about the survival of people than ducks. Most fish and wildlife regulations are stricter than gun purchasing and ownership.

That you wish to limit magazine capacities for the law abiding citizens is funny, since the criminals who rob, rape and murder us will obviously not follow those laws.

Why do you think a limitation on magazine capacity would be a good think? And don't go with the "why do you need them" nonsense. Actually answer and tell us why you think passing laws to limit the amount of ammunition is one loading would make a difference.

 

[HenryBHough]

Of course no criminal currently owns a firearm because that's already illegal.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.

2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.

1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.

2. Holy shit. Family members can file a lawsuit. Texas logic...

I think you misunderstand the point of a gun. You do not carry a gun to scare people. You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals. And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.

It is called "deadly force" for a reason. You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm. It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.

The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.

 

[earlycuyler]

1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.

2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until Uhhthey hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.

1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.

2. Holy shit. Family members can file a lawsuit. Texas logic...

I think you misunderstand the point of a gun. You do not carry a gun to scare people. You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals. And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.

It is called "deadly force" for a reason. You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm. It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.

The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.

brandishing a fire arm is also a felony in many states as well. It is here in Texas anyway.

 

[Lakhota]

1. Because this limeted capacity is a handicap designed to limit the amount of ducks taken. Years ago here in Texas they removed the mag limit during the snow goose season because the population had exploded. TPWD even resorted to poisoning them. All this is covred in hunter safety that just about all states require before one can get a license to hunt.

2. When it comes to shooting thugs, when I took my CCW it was drilled into our heads that we acquire said thug in our sights and hit them center mass repeatedly until they hit the ground and do not get up. In short, kill them good so that they dont file a law suet.

1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.

2. Holy shit. Family members can file a lawsuit. Texas logic...

I think you misunderstand the point of a gun. You do not carry a gun to scare people. You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals. And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.

It is called "deadly force" for a reason. You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm. It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.

The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.

Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery? Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home? Would your neighbors feel safer?

 

[Mojo2]

People get shot a lot in America, and it isn’t always criminals doing the shooting. There are countless stories, stories every day, of people shooting themselves, their neighbors, their friends, and their children, by accident. They’re often “playing” with their guns. Or “cleaning” them when they go off accidentally. These are the law-abiding gun owners, the responsible ones. Sometimes these people are killed, and sometimes they’re just injured, like in the examples cited above.

But if one Georgia company is successful, accidental shootings that injure people may become a thing of the past. That’s because if people start using their bullets, pretty much every person who gets shot will die.

G2 Research’s “Radically Invasive Projectile” (RIP, get it? — because shooting people to death is hilarious) is a copper bullet that explodes when it hits a target (i.e., a human being) sending pieces screaming through vital organs and clearing a path for the bullet’s core to travel deeper through a person.

This multiplies the damage a bullet can do considerably, and is certain to turn what might otherwise be minor injuries into major ones, and major injuries into deaths.

And this is the bullet’s selling point.

Even if you support gun ownership, which most Americans do, it’s time to admit there is something very sick and wrong with our gun culture in this country. The people conducting “open carry” protests at restaurants and stores around the country don’t have pistols attached to their hips; they are carrying assault weapons almost as big as they are. Soon they’ll be able to buy these bullets that tear people apart from the inside.

What kind of fear motivates you that you need to surround yourself constantly with the killing power of a small nation’s military? Whom do you think you’re making safer by toting this stuff around? The number of people shot accidentally by so-called responsible, law-abiding gun owners in this country is astounding. The deadlier we make our guns and our bullets, the more often those shootings will turn into irreversible tragedies.

There is literally no reason for these bullets to exist. Guns are deadly enough as it is.

New Bullets Mean Certain Death - Blue Nation Review Blue Nation Review

This is the last bullet you'll ever need - watch and see the technology for yourself | Rare

G2R RIP 2014 - YouTube

This certainly is a deadly looking bullet. I wonder how accurate it is. I assume accuracy is secondary to its destructive power.

I'm not going to draw on someone unl4ess it's a life or death encounter.

And when I draw on someone and I feel I have to shoot to save life I want the perp to stop threatening me ASAP.

Like immediately.

And I will continue shooting him until he does.

If I'm carrying a five shot revolver I have 5 chances to STOP this guy or these guys before they kill me or mine.

If this bullet is more likely to stop an assailant quicker or more often than with other bullets this is the one I believe everyone will want to carry.

If my loved ones have to shoot to save their lives I want them armed with something that will render an assailant helpless as quickly and as certainly as possible.

RIP bullets sound like the ones to buy.

 

[Mojo2]

1. In other words, your DUCKS are regulated.

2. Holy shit. Family members can file a lawsuit. Texas logic...

I think you misunderstand the point of a gun. You do not carry a gun to scare people. You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals. And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.

It is called "deadly force" for a reason. You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm. It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.

The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.

Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery? Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home? Would your neighbors feel safer?

How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.

I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I think you misunderstand the point of a gun. You do not carry a gun to scare people. You do not wave it around thinking it will intimidate the criminals. And you do not try and wound the bad guy who is actively trying to hurt you or someone else.

It is called "deadly force" for a reason. You use it to completely stop the criminal(s) from doing further harm. It is standard for civilians to shoot until the criminal is down for the count.

The fact that they will not sue you is just a bonus.

Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery? Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home? Would your neighbors feel safer?

How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.

I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.

Which is why I hate the 9mm. If there ever was a pistol that needs all the help it can get,thats the one. Give me a .45 all day everyday.

 

[earlycuyler]

Well, unless someone is a piss poor shot, how many times must a thug be shot to end his/her thuggery? Would you feel safer with a belt-fed machine gun mounted inside your home? Would your neighbors feel safer?

How many videos will you need to view to accept that often, for a number of reasons, a perp who is shot multiple times in lethal places often continues functioning and shooting and killing cops and other good guys before they die of their wounds.

I want a bullet that will STOP an assailant NOW.

Which is why I hate the 9mm. If there ever was a pistol that needs all the help it can get,thats the one. Give me a .45 all day everyday.

Dunno. My grandpa took a bayonet through his hand from a Japanese soldier in the Philippines after biting him center mass four times and in the throat twice. .45 CAP is a man stopper, but not all its cra ked up to be. 9mm has just as good a reputation as a man stopper as any of them. In the end, no hand gun tops the shot gun in close combat. Ill take one of those. As for my CCW, I keep a S&W model 19 that was my Dads.